Towards an Evaluative Model for Determining the Value of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion in Higher
Education
Ray K. Haynes, Indiana University-Bloomington, [email protected] Abdullateef, Directed Study Services, [email protected]
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
Abstract
This paper presentation offers a dynamic model for determining the value of diverse faculty in higher education. It rests on the assumption that the administrations of predominantly white higher education institutions continuously grapple with the dilemma of achieving racial and ethnic diversity among their faculties. The model proffered is evaluative because it could be used to evaluate existing higher education diversity programs. The model is transformative because it creates a paradigm shift from a socio-economic view of diversity to an expanded view that incorporates cultural and ecological dimensions that are rarely considered or appropriately valued when faculty-of-color are hired to diversify higher education institutions.
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
Why?
We believe that this is a necessary and worthwhile endeavor especially since Barack Obama, was elected president of the United States and leader for the free world. For some, the first man of color to be elected to the U S presidency may signal the triumph of diversity and inclusion initiatives and for others, it is an inspirational milestone that may engender complacency and or summative decisions about the efficacy and even the continued need for diversity and inclusion programs.
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
What is Diversity & Inclusion?
Diversity in its broadest sense describes the composition of groups and workforces (Roberson, 2006). Furthermore, diversity could be viewed as traits or demographic characteristics that underscore differences within groups. Milliken and Martins, 1996 succinctly captures the complexity of the diversity construct by suggesting that diversity, in its essence, means the observable and non-observable characteristics of human beings.
Inclusion is defined as racial and ethnic minorities (people of color) gaining access to organizational-related information, resources, specialized work groups along with the ability to influence decision making (Miller, 1998; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998).
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
Workforce Realities
Past labor predictions and prevailing trends suggest that the workforce of the 21st century is and will continue to be characterized by diversity which includes more women, and people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds and life styles (Langdon, McMenamin, & Krolik, 2002)
The need for diversity and inclusion programs still exist!
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
The Diversity-Inclusion Continuum
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
Diversity Inclusion
“Building an inclusive culture on a global scale is more than recruiting diverse talent. People tend to think about filling representation quotas, which is important, but you cant have great representation without an inclusive culture.”
Gil Casellas, Vice President, Corporate Responsibility & Chief Diversity Officer- Dell
The New York Times Magazine , September 13, 2009, p54.
Five Step Diversity Framework
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
1. Institution has reflected on itself
2. Institution has articulated its policy goals
3. Institution has a diversity plan
4. Institution has regularized interim reviews
5. Institution has industry and national diversity linkages
Inspiration for the Model: Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
Motivator Factors:
These factors are also called satisfiers and are know to motivate individuals towards superior performance and effort.
Hygiene or maintenance factors: These factors can also be called dissatisfiers. They describe the organizational environment and function mainly to prevent dissatisfaction but have little effect on positive job attitudes.
The Diversity Ecology Evaluation Model
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
DEEM Hygiene Factors
History on diversity issues and events
Strategies and resources
Primacy of diversity in mission, plans,
goals, etc.
Perceptions of access, equity and
inclusion
Perception of institutional
commitment to diversity
Public perceptions of the institution
Diversity of faculty and staff by level
DADiversity InclusionDD DS
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
Provides a framework for answering the following questions:
•What is the institutional leadership capacity for diversity?
•What is the current state of institutional diversity?
•What is the desired future state of institutional diversity?
•Has institutional diversity changed over time?
• Are diversity efforts likely to be sustained?
• What lessons have been learn, applied and transferred?
Diversity Ecology Evaluation Model (DEEM)
DEEM INDICATORS
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
DEEM Hygiene Factors
History on diversity issues and events
Strategies and resources
Primacy of diversity in mission, plans,
goals, etc.
Perceptions of access, equity and
inclusion
Perception of institutional
commitment to diversity
Public perceptions of the institution
Diversity of faculty and staff by level
DEEM LOGIC MODEL
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
• Resource commitment• Monitoring• Appropriate recruitment
strategies• Compensation and
benefits• Diversity training within
On-boarding/Orientation programs
+Diversity Accelerators
• Closed institutional climate and culture
• Inflexible Institutional policies • Working conditions• Isolation• Treatment as a fungible
resource
-Diversity Derailers
• Leadership commitment• Critical mass• Internal peer recognition• Flexible work policies• Mentoring and coaching
+Diversity Sustainers
Diversity Inclusion
Diversity Accelerators Evaluative Focus
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
WHAT WHO HOW
Resources committed University administration Budget allotment
Monitoring University administration Institutional ResearchUnit & Department level
Scheduled frequency counts and reporting
Appropriate recruitment strategies
University administrationUnit and departmental level
Traditional and non-traditional sources
Flexible compensation & benefits
University administrationUnit and departmental level
A transparent range of compensation & benefits packages subject tailoring
Diversity & cultural competence training
University human resources function
During On-boarding of all university employees
Diversity Derailers Evaluative Focus
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
WHAT WHO HOW
Closed Institutional climate & culture
University administration Institutional ResearchUnit & department level
Scheduled climate and culture scansGrievance & dispute resolution process reporting
Inflexible institutional policies & practices
University administration Institutional ResearchUnit & department level
Environmental scans Best practice sharing
Working conditions University administrationUnit and departmental level
Environmental scans Best practice sharing
Isolation Unit and departmental levelIndividual
High involvement and collegial culture
Treatment as a fungible resource
Unit and departmental levelIndividual
Value differences
Diversity Sustainers Evaluative Focus
Evaluation 2009 Orlando
WHAT WHO HOW
Leadership commitment University administration Unit & department level
Stated and demonstrated commitment: Diversity champion
Critical mass Diverse employees across all levels of the university
Intentional recruitment, retention and succession policies and procedures
Peer recognition Unit and departmental level Intra and cross-disciplinary recognition
Flexible work policies University administration Unit and departmental levelI
Flex time Job sharing Child allowance
Mentoring & coaching University administration Unit and departmental level
Establishment of formal mentoring programs
Thank You!Evaluation 2009 Orlando
What Questions do You Have?